So, you’ve bought the building. You have the vision. It is all becoming a reality.

Maybe it’s an old barn you want to turn into a wedding venue. Maybe it’s an abandoned industrial building you plan to convert into high end apartments. Maybe it’s a warehouse you envision as a gym, or a brewery, or a creative space. You see endless potential where other people see problems, and you are ready to bring new life to a property that’s been sitting idle.

The purchase is complete. The keys are in your hand.

Now what?

This is the point where many (if not most) redevelopment projects begin to stall. This stall is not because the idea is bad, but because the process that follows is far more complex than most people expect.

It Starts with Your Idea

Your vision for what your project could be is only the beginning. Redeveloping or revitalizing a building involves layers and layers of legal and regulatory requirements that happen behind the scenes, and the average person does not see. Zoning rules, permits, inspections, and occupancy approvals are not simple technicalities, they are what determine whether your project can legally move forward at all.

One of the biggest challenges is that these rules are not uniform. Every city, town, and municipality has its own zoning code, permitting process, and inspection requirements. What worked in one location (or what a prior owner may have done or told you worked for them) does not guarantee that your project will be approved.

Zoning Matters Most

Zoning should always be your first step. Zoning determines what uses are allowed in a given area. Commercial, residential, industrial, mixed-use. These are the general classifications that dictate whether your idea is ever permitted on paper. But zoning is not just about the neighborhood. It is also about the building itself.

A property may be in a mixed-use or commercial district, yet the building may only be approved for a specific use. Changing a building from storage units to an event space, from industrial use to gym, or from commercial to HUD apartments often requires formal approval. That process may involve variances, conditional use permits, or hearings before a zoning board. In many cases, that approval comes through a Board of Zoning Appeals, which is often called a BZA.

A BZA process typically involves a formal application, public notice and a hearing where the proposed use is reviewed by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Neighbors in the community may have the opportunity to comments, however, the board is the one that ultimately gets to decide it the variance or the conditional use will be granted. This process can be long and daunting and can affect the timeline of your project, the budget of your project, and even the feasibility of your project. It needs to be considered early, before construction begins.

Skipping a review of zoning or assuming that zoning approval exists can lead to significant delays and expensive corrections later on, particularly if a project moves forward with necessary zoning authorization.

Don’t Overlook Historic District Restrictions

Another issue that often surprises owners is historic zoning.

If a building is located in a historic district or subject to historic preservation rules, additional layers of approval may apply. Changes to the exterior of the building, the windows, doors, signage, building materials, and even paint colors can be regulated. In some cases, interior alterations may also be restricted.

Historic designation does not mean redevelopment is impossible, but it does mean the process requires careful planning and early coordination sometimes even requiring coordination with the historic conservation board of the city or community you are redeveloping in. Discovering these restrictions after plans are finalized (or after work has begun) can significantly increase costs and timelines.

You Need Permits for More Than You Think

Once zoning is confirmed and any required approvals are obtained, the next step is permitting. Permits are often where redevelopment projects quietly fall apart.

Many property owners assume permits are only required for major construction or structural changes; however, permits are required for far more than most people expect. Generally, permits are required for all new construction, major repairs, alterations to a building, additions to a building, major plumbing or electrical changes, HVAC systems, fire alarms, fire suppression systems, and structural modification. The permit process is put in place to allow inspectors to verify that work meets safety and building code standards.

Permitting also matters because it ties directly into a building’s approved use. When a building is being converted from one use to another permits help document that transition and ensure that building systems meet the standards require for the new system. When a building changes from commercial use to residential use the fire, electrical and safety requirements generally change.

Failure to obtain proper permits can lead to enforcement actions, fines, and delays. Importantly, it can prevent your building from receiving a Certificate of Occupancy. Without that certificate, your building cannot legally be occupied, even if the work is complete.

Permits are critical when cities conduct inspections or respond to complaints made about your building. If an inspector identifies work that was done without a permit it generally will make the issue much bigger than it could have been. What might have started as a limited inspection can turn into a comprehensive review of the building, increasing both your cost and risk.

Doing work without permits often feels faster at the outset, but it frequently creates larger problems down the road. Unpermitted work can delay inspections, trigger enforcement actions, or prevent a building from being legally occupied.

Inspections and Compliance

After permitted work is completed, inspections follow. Building, housing, and fire inspectors are responsible for ensuring compliance with applicable codes, safety standards and approved plans. Their role is not to manage a project, but to confirm that the building is safe and compliant.

When inspectors identify violations or noncompliant conditions, they typically expect the property owners or property managers to evaluate the building as a whole and correct similar issues wherever they exist. An inspector notes problems in one location, but that is often an indicator of a broader compliance concern, not a single, contained defect.

Treating inspections as a checklist of individual fixes can lead to repeated citations, additional inspections, and increased enforcement. Taking a comprehensive approach by understanding the code requirements and applying the consistently throughout the building, helps projects move forward more efficiently and reduces the risk of ongoing compliance issues.

The Certificate of Occupancy

All  of these steps lead to one essential requirement: the Certificate of Occupancy. A Certificate of Occupancy is the City’s confirmation that a building is legally approved for its intended use and safe for people to occupy. Even if the renovations are complete, the building looks exactly like it is supposed to, and everything it perfect, the building cannot be lived in, operated out of or opened to the public without a Certificate of Occupancy.

To obtain a Certificate of Occupancy, the City will typically require that zoning is correct for the intended use, all required permits have been properly obtained, and all necessary inspections have been passed. If any of those steps were skipped or handled out of order, the Certificate of Occupancy can be delayed or denied. If any of those steps were skipped or completed out of order, securing a Certificate of Occupancy becomes significantly more difficult.

Common Mistakes We See

We regularly see property owners run into trouble because they assume that if a building can be used a certain way, it must be allowed to be used that way. Relying on what similar buildings nearby are doing or what a prior owner did is a common, and costly, mistake.

Another frequent issue is failing to distinguish between the zoning of the area and the approved use of the building itself. Even in mixed-use districts, a building may not be approved for residential or event use without additional approval.

Unpermitted construction is another major problem. Electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and fire systems are often modified without permits, creating issues when inspections occur.

Historic district restrictions are also frequently overlooked, particularly when owners are eager to move quickly. Discovering those requirements late in the process can derail an otherwise well-planned project.

Perhaps the most challenging situations arise when tenants or businesses are already occupying a building before zoning, permitting, and occupancy approvals are in place. At that point, the process has to be done in reverse, often under the pressure of inspections or enforcement action.

Working Backwards Is Always Harder

Our firm regularly helps clients navigate zoning, permitting, inspections, and Certificates of Occupancy. We can assist in coordinating with local authorities, identifying compliance issues, and helping projects move forward.

However, it is important to be candid: it is far easier, and far less expensive, to do this correctly from the beginning. When zoning and approvals are addressed early, projects tend to move more efficiently and with far less risk. When issues must be fixed after the fact, especially when a building is already occupied, the process becomes more complicated, more time-consuming, and significantly more expensive.

Redeveloping a building can be an exciting and rewarding investment. However, it can also be a legal and regulatory disaster if the proper steps are skipped or misunderstood.

Before you renovate, lease, or open your doors, make sure you understand what approvals are required, what restrictions apply, and what order the process should follow. Doing it right from the start is almost always the most efficient path forward, and it can save you time, money, and stress in the long run.

 

Finney Law Firm is honored to have been recently retained to represent Cincinnati Police Chief Teresa Theetge regarding her employment with the City. Chief Theetge is the first female Police Chief in the City’s history, and has an unblemished 35-year record of dedicated and distinguished public service, but was recently placed on paid leave by the City in the wake of several high-profile crimes in the downtown business district. The Chief, whose commonsense efforts to reduce crime in the City were unfortunately ignored by the politicians, is being unfairly used as a scapegoat to distract attention from those who are truly responsible for the problems the City is facing. FLF is committed to getting her back to work, and to hold the City responsible for its unlawful action against her.

Stephen Imm, head of our Labor and Employment Law practice group, is leading the team defending Chief Theetge’s rights. You can view Steve’s recent news conference here.

When it comes to expanding access to addiction treatment, it’s crucial for providers to understand their legal rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The anti-discrimination provision of these laws prohibit zoning decisions by local governments that discriminate against drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs, the clients of which are “qualified individuals with a disability.”

The ADA and the Rehabilitation Act prohibit local governments from:

  • Making zoning or siting decisions that discriminate against individuals with disabilities.
  • Selecting facility locations in ways that exclude, deny benefits to, or otherwise discriminate against individuals with disabilities.
  • Enforcing ordinances or regulations that treat treatment centers differently from other healthcare facilities.

Additionally, a city’s refusal to provide reasonable accommodations—such as a variance or zoning modification that allows a treatment facility to operate—is also discriminatory under federal law.

How this pairs with outreach:

As explained in Rebecca Simpson’s recent blog post, early outreach to elected and community leaders can clear up misconceptions and build allies. Additionally, by explaining these legal principles in plain language to council members, community development staff, and law directors, providers can help ensure that local officials fully understand their legal obligations – creating a foundation for cooperative, well-informed decision-making.

If a dispute still arises, providers can move from engagement to assertive advocacy—using their knowledge of the law and, when necessary, the courts to protect their rights while keeping the focus on timely access to care.

Rebecca Simpson is an attorney and seasoned government and public affairs strategist at Finney Law Firm. If you need support with community engagement, coalition building, or advocacy at the state or local level, you can reach her at Rebecca@finneylawfirm.isoc.net.

When opening or expanding addiction treatment facilities, providers often face fierce NIMBY (“Not In My Backyard”) opposition. While these concerns are common, they are not insurmountable. With the right strategy, providers can turn opposition into opportunity by building strong community relationships and showcasing the benefits of treatment access.

  1. Engage Early and Often
    The key to overcoming NIMBY opposition is to engage local leaders and community members early. Meet with local officials, and listen to concerns before applying for permits. Early engagement fosters trust and helps identify allies.
  2. Craft a Community-Focused Narrative
    Frame your facility as a community benefit. Highlight how treatment centers reduce crime, alleviate strain on hospitals, and provide jobs. Share success stories from other communities where these benefits became reality.
  3. Partner with Local Organizations
    Form alliances with local nonprofits, faith groups, or businesses. Partnerships show that you’re invested in the community’s wellbeing and not just a company seeking profit.
  4. Demonstrate Tangible Benefits
    Outline how your facility will bring jobs, improve public safety, and offer resources to families. Data and case studies can turn skeptics into supporters.

Building Trust Before You Need It

These strategies aren’t just for treatment providers—they’re valuable for any organization entering a new community. Thoughtful outreach allows you to create allies before you need them, and ensures that local leaders and decision-makers have accurate information about your company’s benefits before NIMBY voices can spread misinformation. It also gives them a direct point of contact when questions arise, fostering transparency and partnership rather than tension.

When Legal Strategy Becomes Essential

Even with proactive engagement, some projects will still face local zoning or permitting challenges. In those cases, there are important legal tools that can help. Drug treatment centers are afforded protections under both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibit discriminatory zoning practices. When a well-planned outreach effort is paired with a strategic legal approach, providers can often resolve opposition and move projects forward while preserving community trust.

Overcoming NIMBY opposition requires planning, empathy, and expertise. The most successful outcomes come from pairing thoughtful community outreach with a clear understanding of the legal framework that protects access to care. If you need support navigating these challenges, expert guidance can make all the difference.

Rebecca Simpson is an attorney and seasoned government and public affairs strategist at Finney Law Firm. If you need support with community engagement, coalition building, or advocacy at the state or local level, you can reach her at Rebecca@finneylawfirm.isoc.net.

On Thursday, Finney Law Firm client Eugene Utz sued Pavan Parikh, the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts, and today will be filing a separate suit against the City of Cincinnati directly at the Ohio Supreme Court — both as original actions, as is permitted and appropriate — to open the records of the criminal proceedings against Alex Tchervinski, the claimed-to-be victim of the July 26, 2025 4th street brawl in downtown Cincinnati that has gained intense and sustained international media and political attention.

A cornerstone of our justice system — in Ohio and throughout the nation — is that all legal proceedings (with the exceptions [each for obvious reasons] of juvenile court and national security issues) is openness and transparency in legal proceedings.  This means that pleadings, hearings, trials and appellate work are all immediately open to public viewing and scrutiny.  This is not a hard concept to understand.

The opposite is a “Star Chamber,” named for a former English court (c. 1485–1641) known for its use of arbitrary and unfair methods.  This term has been used to describe any tribunal that acts with a similar lack of due process, which is utterly abusive of our our established standards for the American administration of justice.

Notwithstanding that, our Cincinnati administrators and our County Clerk of Courts — with no authority and no order of the Court — have on their own decided to seal the records of the criminal charges against Alex Tchervinski, the claimed-to-be victim of the July 26, 2025 4th street brawl that has gained national attention.  No representative of the media and no member of the public can see the criminal charges or any other filings in the Tchervinski criminal case.  (But they can see the court records of the six black defendants of involved in the melee.  How does this make any sense?)  At this stage, no Judge has even ruled (which ruling would be improper) to seal such records.  We hear secondhand that the defendant does not even know the charges against him.

All of Constitutional principles of due process and free speech (i.e., access to the public and press to comment and report on Court proceedings), Ohio’s public records law and the Rules of Superintendence of the Courts promulgated by the Ohio Supreme Court require these records to be made public.  But yet, the City Solicitor and the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts have decided to protect them from public release.

One might ask “why?” but of course we don’t know the “why” without seeing the records.  Moreover and simply amazingly, the City and the Clerk have sealed the Motion to Seal the records, so we don’t even know the argument for the sealing.  This is beyond abusive, it is simply bizarre.

Watch this blog for updates on this important case.

Read the Clerk of Courts Mandamus Complaint before the Ohio Supreme Court here: 2025_09_04_Complaint

Contact Curt Hartman (513.379.2923), Christopher Finney (513.943.6655) or Mickey McClanahan (513.797.2850) for assistance with public interest issues.

Always topical, always timely, the Volokh Conspiracy today writes of Finney Law Firm and attorney Curt Hart’s win at a jury trial (pretty amazing thing for a First Amendment case) in Colorado Springs, Colorado.  Volokh covers it thoroughly here:  Jury Concludes Policy Banning Written Signs at School Board Meetings Was Unreasonable, Implemented in a Viewpoint-Based Way

Sincere congratulations to Curt Hartman on the big win, and for including us as co-counsel in the case.

This week, Governor Mike DeWine signed Ohio’s state operating budget into law—marking a major win for Ohio taxpayers and small businesses, thanks to the dedicated efforts of Finney Law Firm and our client, the Ohio Deputy Registrar’s Association (ODRA).

Many Ohioans may not realize that local Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) offices are not run by the state, but by privately owned small businesses known as Deputy Registrars. This innovative, privatized model saves Ohio taxpayers more than $215 million annually, while keeping service costs low and customer satisfaction high. For example, registering a 2024 Chevy Blazer in Ohio costs just $36 to $66—compared to $300 in Kentucky and over $400 in Indiana.

But this successful model has been under strain. The fees Deputy Registrars earn per transaction are set by state statute and have not kept pace with rising labor and operating costs. As a result, some local BMV offices have been forced to close, leading to longer drives and wait times for Ohio residents.

On behalf of ODRA, Finney Law Firm led a months-long, statewide advocacy campaign to secure a $3 fee adjustment for Deputy Registrars. Our approach combined direct legislative advocacy with strategic grassroots and grasstops mobilization, training Deputy Registrars across Ohio to engage their communities and legislators.

The result: a bipartisan policy solution that stabilizes the Deputy Registrar system, preserves a cost-effective service model, protects access for Ohioans, and continues to save the state millions.

I had the privilege of serving as Finney Law Firm’s lead on this initiative, working closely with ODRA and dozens of small business owners across the state. This victory reaffirms what we believe is the most effective model for state and local policy change: a combination of expert legal and policy strategy, direct advocacy, and strategic grassroots and grasstops advocacy.

Rebecca Simpson is an attorney and seasoned government and public affairs strategist at Finney Law Firm. If you need support with community engagement, coalition building, or advocacy at the state or local level, you can reach her at Rebecca@finneylawfirm.isoc.net.

 

Judge Patrick Dinkelacker this week issued a ruling in a case that has been simmering since December of 2024 in favor of our client, Lee Robinson, recognizing our client’s right to what Ohio law references as a “prescriptive easement” over portions of property on which a developer had planned to place retail shops, a boutique hotel, apartments and an underground parking garage.

The decision establishes our client’s right — acquired by usage and by operation of law (see below) — to have vehicular ingress and egress over portions of the developer’s property, meaning his accessway must be maintained as it is, and the grade of the entrance to our client’s parking lot must stay the same.  Since the developer’s plan were to engage in construction activity blocking the easement area, and it planned to place buildings in the easement area and change the grade of the easement relative to our client’s parking lot, the developer is effectively prevented from moving forward with currently-planned development.

It is generally a surprise to lay persons (and some attorneys), but one can gain ownership of another’s property in most states (if not all), including Ohio and Kentucky, by continued occupancy and use of the property for a protracted period of time — in Ohio 21 years and in Kentucky 15 years.  In law school we learn the five required elements to achieve this end as O.C.E.A.N.: Open, Continuous, Exclusive, Adverse and Notorious use and occupancy of the property.  If proved, in Ohio by “clear and convincing evidence,” then the adverse possessor has full legal ownership of and title to the property.

A stranger to title can also acquire the lesser right of “easement” over another’s property by eliminating the “exclusive” part of the adverse possession requirements, so O.C.A.N, for the same 21-year period in Ohio, to establish what is known as a prescriptive easement.  This easement is every bit as good or better than an easement given by express grant, and (for example) passes with title  to the property benefitted by the easement.

It was precisely this type of “prescriptive easement” benefiting Finney Law Firm’s client’s property on Hyde Park Square that Judge Dinkelacker recognized by his decision this week.

The team that prepared and tried this case (the preliminary injunction hearing) were Christopher Finney, Julie Gugino, J. Andrew Gray, Mickey McClannahan, and Emma Friedhoff, among others, greatly aided by Steve Griffith of Taft Law.  Our expert witness at trial was noted Clermont County attorney and title insurance agent Doug Thomson.

You may read the whole decision here: Robinson Decision

We are pleased to present this blog entry from guest author, Eric Russo, executive director of The Hillside Trust, a non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation and thoughtful use of our region’s hillsides. Eric has served this organization for over 35 years. His opinion is not a paid endorsement of the Finney Law Firm. Rather, he has worked with multiple other highly qualified land use attorneys that have helped deny or overturn various hillside developments that have posed threats to their communities.

 ______________________

On February 3, 2025, the North Bend Planning Commission voted 4-0 against a hillside development proposed above St. Annes Dr in the Aston Oaks Community.  The residents of St. Annes hired the Finney Law Firm and worked in opposition with The Hillside Trust.

I have been involved in scores of hillside development reviews throughout the Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky region.  The Hillside Trust often testifies in these cases when it determines that a project presents a host of issues that are detrimental to the geological integrity of a hillside and/or to the safety of the surrounding community. It provides this testimony free of charge as a public service.

There are instances where an impacted community has reached out to The Hillside Trust seeking its expertise, particularly when a development is posing an environmental threat.  One of my first recommendations in these situations is to encourage the community to engage the services of a qualified land use attorney. My reasoning is simple. When you have expert legal representation, two things will happen.  First, your side is allotted the requisite time to present all arguments against the development.  Often this will include legal matters related to land use and zoning that are less familiar to the lay person.  Having additional time on your side will be an added benefit, considering that both proponents and opponents alike are usually allotted a set amount of time to testify, typically ranging from 2 minutes to 5 minutes per person.  Second, your attorney is afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the testimony of the development team’s professionals, just as his or her attorney can cross-examine the witnesses of its opponents. Based on my experience, when a developer has legal representation, and opponents do not, the decision invariably will side with the developer.

I commend the neighbors of St. Annes Dr for investing in attorney representation to protect the financial and environmental interests of their street. The North Bend Planning Commission hearing lasted well over 4 hours, including a three-hour Power Point presentation of expert witness testimony coordinated by Rebecca Simpson, an attorney with the Finney Law Firm. I have no doubt this expert legal representation aided in the ultimate denial of this environmentally consequential hillside development.

As the real estate market continues to escalate in value, there are substantial profits that will be made from development.  Consequently, developers are building attorney fees into the costs of doing business. Short of owning the piece of development property in question, a community’s best tactic is to have legal representation by an experienced land use attorney.  It does not guarantee they will win the case. However, their concerns will be represented far more equitably in their quest to level the playing field of administrative review.

Introduction

Is your neighbor violating a county, township, village, or city zoning ordinance? Have you reported the violation to your local government, but the local government refuses to take action? If your neighbor’s violation affects your property value, you may be able to sue directly and enforce the zoning code.

In this article, I will be discussing the right of private landowners to sue under and enforce county, township, village, and city zoning codes against nearby property owners or users, specifically those who are impacting the landowner’s property value or rights.

Background

Zoning ordinances, codes, and regulations are laws enacted by local governments, such as counties, townships, villages, and cities. Zoning laws are designed by local governments to control what a landowner may do with their property and how the property can by improved or changed. The most impactful form of zoning laws relate to land use; for example, a property zoned for a residential land use can only be used for homes, apartments, or condominiums, restricting the landowner from opening a commercial use like a store. Some zoning laws further restrict the intensity of land uses, stopping a landowner from building an apartment within a zone designated for single-family homes. Further, zoning laws can affect the size and placement of buildings, fences, and other improvements through maximum building height restrictions, minimum setback requirements, and minimum parking requirements.

As a general rule, most zoning ordinances, building and housing codes, and other local laws cannot be enforced by a private party. Typically, the local government is the only party with “standing” to enforce such a law. “Standing” is the legal term for the right of a person to file a lawsuit. However, some state laws create a private cause of action to stop or prevent a zoning violation, granting a landowner standing to sue a neighbor or adjoining landowner, as discussed below.

Statutes

Three Ohio statutes grant private landowners the right to sue for a neighbor’s violation of a zoning ordinance – R.C. 713.13 for landowners in cities and villages, R.C. 519.24 for townships, and R.C. 303.24 for counties. These statutes allow private landowners to sue for an injunction against neighbors acting in violation of the zoning statutes if the private landowner is or would be “especially damaged by such violation… .”[1] Injunctions are remedies which do not provide for damages, or monetary relief, but are court orders which directs a party to act or not act in a certain way. For example, if your neighbor is running a business out of their garage, an injunction could force the neighbor to close the business or move it to a different location.

Legal Standing to Sue

In order for a private landowner to have standing to sue for zoning violations, the statutes require that landowners be “especially damaged” by the zoning violation they are trying to enjoin. Ohio courts have fleshed out several avenues by which a landowner can show special damages from a zoning violation sufficient to grant standing to sue.

Lowered property values constitutes special damages; the landowner’s or an appraiser’s testimony that the landowner’s property value has diminished is sufficient to prove standing.[2] Additionally, Ohio courts have found that a landowner has established special damages from a zoning violation where the “character of the neighborhood would be affected in a different manner from other [similar] properties by the proposed use.”[3] Finally, a landowner has a special injury and standing to bring suit where the zoning violation interferes with the landowner’s use and enjoyment of their land.[4]

While R.C. 303.24, R.C. 519.24, and R.C. 713.13 grant a landowner the right to sue for a neighbor’s violation of a zoning statute, whether an injunction is granted is determined by the circumstances, including the costs of compliance with the law and the harm to the landowner created by the violation.[5]

Conclusion

If you need help with local zoning codes or real estate law in Ohio, wish to enforce a local zoning law as discussed in this article, or would like to learn more about zoning and other property codes, contact Chris Finney 513.943.6655, Jessica Gibson 513.943.5677, or J. Andrew Gray 513.943.6658 today.

[1] R.C. 303.24; R.C. 519.24; R.C. 713.13.

[2] Conkle v. S. Ohio Med. Center, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 04CA2973, 2005-Ohio-3965, ¶ 14.

[3] Ameigh v. Baycliffs Corp., 127 Ohio App.3d 254, 262, 712 N.E.2d 784 (6th Dist.1998), see also Verbillion v. Enon Sand & Gravel, LLC, 2021-Ohio-3850, 180 N.E.3d 638, ¶ 46-47, appeal not accepted for review 166 Ohio St.3d 1414, 2022-Ohio-554, 181 N.E.3d 1209.

[4] Miller v. W Carrollton, 91 Ohio App.3d 291, 296, 632 N.E.2d 582 (2d Dist.1993).

[5] Garcia v. Gillette, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2013-A-0015, 2014-Ohio-1868, ¶ 29.